Content deleted Content added
Jonovision (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
BarryNorton (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 149:
::::Actually, there are no requirements to discuss the deletion before nominating an article. In this case, the main person discussing with you was the author of the article, and I doubt he would have admitted it was worthy of deletion even if he thought so. That's why I've nominated it directly so that more people can be involved. An AfD is just that - we discuss the sources and notability, and decide if they fit within the criteria; there's no need to take it personally. The problem is that it went far too passionate because of the Google issue, and with weird assumptions of bad faith (as if there was some kind of Google conspiracy against the article), and that lead to a very poor debate. I still think the sources are very thin but I obviously won't nominate it again for deletion. [[User:WikiLaurent|Laurent]] ([[User talk:WikiLaurent|talk]]) 10:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::I see your point. I would have liked to discuss things more myself, especially the larger issue of how we should approach looking at the notability of academic subjects, and judging the reliability of various journals. I got the impression that most people got involved in the deletion debate just to vote either way, without really wanting to look at the broader issues involved. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] ([[User talk:Jonovision|talk]]) 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: "The two inline references I removed (TripCom and SOA4All) make no mention of Go!, and I have absolutely no idea what relevance they have" - again, why not ask on the talk page? You simply do not assume good faith. First I'm accused of being Frank, now you're accusing me of being a spammer. No? [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
:::: "The Erlang reference only mentions Go! in a footnote" - you mean mentions it thus ''by name'', I suppose? (I mean, when the alternative is that you're simply lying.) You have an occasional 'academic bias' but you're unaware that academics very often refer to one another simply by citation (and that citing an article about Go! in the body text of an introduction to a paper ''is'' citing Go!) [[User:BarryNorton|BarryNorton]] ([[User talk:BarryNorton|talk]]) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
| |||